TMI Blog1957 (9) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee preferred appeals against these assessments. Independently of the appeals, however, the Commissioner exercised his revisional jurisdiction and reduced the tax liability of the petitioner by the order dated 7th January, 1954. The tax payable by the assessee with reference to the accounting period 1944-45 was reduced to ₹ 15,513-5-0 and that for 1945-46 was reduced to ₹ 31,716-0-0. The total of the taxes due from the assessee thus came to ₹ 47,229-5-0. 2. On 13th March, 1953, the Excess Profits Tax Officer issued a certificate to the Collector under section 46(2) of the Act for the recovery of the taxes due. It should be remembered that on that date though the appeals preferred by the petitioner were pending the taxes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een misplaced. The learned counsel fort the petitioner referred to the terms of section 46(2) of the Act which ran : The Income Tax Officer may forward to the Collector a certificate under his signature specifying the amount of arrears due from an assessee and the Collector, on receipt of such certificate, shall proceed to recover from such assessee the amount specified therein as if it were an arrear of land revenue. 6. The learned counsel contended that the burden lay upon the Department not merely to prove that the certificate had been forwarded but that it had also been received by the Collector, and unless both these tests were satisfied, the Collector would have no jurisdiction to recover anything from the assessee. It may not b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , in which case these proceedings were clearly barred by limitation. 10. That the certificate dated 13th March, 1953, was a proceeding for the recovery of the tax payable within the meaning of section 46(7) can admit of no doubt - see also Arunadevi Jajodia v. Collector of Madras. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of the explanation to section 46(7) added by the amending Act of 1953, the principle laid down in Arunadevi Jajodias case should be treated as no longer good law. I am unable to agree. The principle still remains the same. A certificate issued under section 46(2) is a proceeding to recover a tax due from the assessee. 12. The only other point that remains for consideration is whether the ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt passed by the Excess Profits Tax Officer. In my opinion, the Collector was entitled to take proceedings on the basis of the certificate dated 13th March, 1953, through of course only the amount lawfully due from the petitioner could be recovered on the basis of that certificate. 13. The learned counsel for the respondent referred to Ladhuram Taparia v. D. K. Ghosh where at page 114 Sinha, J., observed : 14. It is not disputed that the Certificate Officer has the power to amend the certificate. Thus, where the amount of tax due has been scaled down by the appellate authority, I do not see why it is incompetent to amend the certificate, so that the proceedings would continue for the realisation of the reduced amount as ordered by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
